Today, we cannot know if people would still buy Microsoft products because the government protects the monopoly. What percentage of the market would Microsoft have in a fair market? The only way we can answer that last question is to stop manufacturers from preloading Windows. Until then, we do not have a free market. Microsoft has no way to prove itself otherwise, says LXer.

Microsoft prove it self in the early days. Business don't give two planks about doing anything right to start with. They want it cheap, good enough and now. The IBM PC did that. Windows did that. It does it now and would still do it even if it wasn't preloaded on every machine.

the FOSS community cannot wrap its mind around the fact that shit sells, and sells well.

Huh? Microsoft didn't prove itself in the early days. Microsoft road the coat tails of IBMs stability by copying code and UI from Apple. It achieved its dominance in OSes with this... then leveraged that to gain dominance in office suites... once they learned they could extend their monopoly... they kept the business rolling with the same business model ever since.

You can genuinely say that Microsoft achieved its status through their own merit.

Had Microsoft not ridden the coat tails and stolen from others, the battle would have been based on who could deliver what the public wanted based on innovation. Back then, Apple was coming up and it was IBM's market to lose.

"the FOSS community cannot wrap its mind around the fact that shit sells, and sells well."

And the Microsoft shills cannot wrap their mind around the fact that the "shit" sells well because of the benefits received from the afformention IBM coat tails and Apple theft.

Without stealing their momentum, Microsoft was not an any track to achieve dominance through their own creativity and ingenuity.

Huh? Microsoft didn't prove itself in the early days. Microsoft road the coat tails of IBMs stability by copying code and UI from Apple.

Rode IBM's coattails? Ummmm buddy Apple was the biggest PC (as in "personal computers" not servers, work stations, etc) provider before Windows 3.1, if they needed to ride someones "coattials" it would be Apple, the very fact that they chose to go to invest in IBM was purely a business choice (which proved to be extremely profitable). Second, the UI wasn't even Apples's idea it was Xerox's which shows your ignorance to use an argument that's long since been put to rest. In addition to that, the GUI (the concept, which was actually what was accused of being stolen, not the UI (which is a specific design vs a concept, this is ignorant in that Windows has always had a substantially differant UI than Apple's)) was a natural progression of the Computer Industry, atleast to penetrate the Home User market it was. Also your exceptionally ignorant in this area when the entire CORE of Mac OS X isn't even Apple's it's FreeBSD's.

You can genuinely say that Microsoft achieved its status through their own merit.

Yeah they made great business decisions, they invested in a company that had a similiar vision to theirs...to bring computers completely to the Home User market (which, I can aknowledge, Apple proved was a profitable market) and make computers for the Business Market more efficient for practical use (Word Processing, Spreadsheets, etc; not programming, web design (atleast not until the internet boom), servers, etc).

Had Microsoft not ridden the coat tails and stolen from others, the battle would have been based on who could deliver what the public wanted based on innovation. Back then, Apple was coming up and it was IBM's market to lose.

Apple wasn't "coming up", it was the biggest PC provider. The fact that the company took a dive until the iMac G3 was purely Apple's fault a no one else's. (the loss of "The Woz", NeXTStep, etc).

And the Microsoft shills cannot wrap their mind around the fact that the "shit" sells well because of the benefits received from the afformention IBM coat tails and Apple theft.
Is this the only point you can come up with? Gosh, I would have thought that a troll would atleast be alil more knowledgable, but guess I was wrong. So how about I start accusing Apple of all it's thefts so far...the Mac OS X Kernel (which I know was legal under the BSD license, but so was MS's use of the GUI), the multibutton mouse, colored GUI, USB, DVD, CD-Burners (the superdrive came well after Wintel machines had DVD-ROMs and CD-RWs) etc etc. Three of these were natural evolutions in the Computer Industry, yet Windows (and for some of the hardware, IBM-based PC's) had them first therefore with the way Mac users think, you stole them.

Without stealing their momentum, Microsoft was not an any track to achieve dominance through their own creativity and ingenuity.

I could rebuke this, but in general Windows isn't very original, but neither is Apple (atleast post Macintosh). I'm done and out...

Apparently there's things called viruses, spyware and adware which Microsoft can't seem to keep out. These things are one of the main issues must users have with Windows, the second being inconsistant UI. It appears they've built too much code too fast and are having trouble managing all of it, with it's team of speed coders.

1. MS has Windows/Office for everyday users, and superior VStudio/MSDN for developers.
2. MS has better product documentation/support
3. Windows are pretty stable now.
4. Linux/Unices are still harder to use.
5. It is only recently that a barely enough OO is available on *nices
6. There is NOT a easy to use and decent development tool. Eclipse is quite difficult to start with.
7. *nices, OO, and various tools are separate products that can coexist on the same PC, not a system of products that work closely together.
8. There are a lot of decent games on Windows verses close to 0 on *nices.
9......................

Interesting that NONE of your points refer to Windows as being a "better product." Almost always, people refer to better programs, and better driver support as to why Windows is superior. The reality is that neither of these have anything to do with the Windows program itself.

But then again, this takes too much thinking. Let's just regurgitate what MS tells us.

Interesting that NONE of your points refer to Windows as being a "better product." Almost always, people refer to better programs, and better driver support as to why Windows is superior. The reality is that neither of these have anything to do with the Windows program itself.

Well, if you are going to use this kind of logic, then it would only stand to reason that we would've all ended up with Betamax's back in the day instead of VCR's, right? I mean, sure the VCR had a much better selection of movies, but the Betamax was technically superior, wasn't it?

Well, newsflash - it's the driver support and applications that makes the OS, not the OS itself. As a case in point, my portable mp3 player is a UMS device so it works on just about any computer. But in order to flash the firmware, I need a Windows box. So what the hell good would a non-Windows computer do me in this case?

Too many folks get tied up in the "stability" or "security" side of an OS and claim it is superior because of these factors alone.

I can tell you my experience is that for the average folk at home will judge a product based on their overall experience with it. People want to buy a printer, camera, memory stick, scanner, etc and they want to plug it in and have it work with little fuss.

That's pretty much impossible on Linux. It doesn't have the technology to do it.

Quote: "That's pretty much impossible on Linux. It doesn't have the technology to do it."

That's complete and utter FUD. It most certainly does have the technology, in fact, Linux is generally very much ahead of Microsoft Windows in supporting new technologies. When you're dealing with closed source drivers/APIs etc, it's very hard to reverse engineer and have 100% compatibility.

I can pretty much buy a camera, printer, memory stick etc, and the Linux kernel will see it (as a device). Whether or not the layers on top of the kernel see it, and allow you to actually install/use it is another matter. You have to be careful how you word your comment, in order to actually be correct :-)

"That's complete and utter FUD. It most certainly does have the technology, in fact, Linux is generally very much ahead of Microsoft Windows in supporting new technologies. When you're dealing with closed source drivers/APIs etc, it's very hard to reverse engineer and have 100% compatibility. "

Then it "generally" doesn't have the technology for a certain class of hardware (closed hardware).* Yes I'm aware of this, having been on a mailing list for the developer of a sound card driver. It took him a little over a year to finally develop one, and it was with some "behind the scenes" help from a small company. So it isn't quite FUD so much as it's an incomplete statement.

*One should make note of the other class of hardware. The niche hardware that only a few bought. Open or not, you still need a driver writer with both the itch and access to the hardware.

"People want to buy a printer, camera, memory stick, scanner, etc and they want to plug it in and have it work with little fuss."
"That's pretty much impossible on Linux. It doesn't have the technology to do it."

Very true. I had the same thing with a LG DVD burner sometime ago. Again, this isn't Linux's fault, this is the software vendors offering very poor service to their paying customers. If I buy a product, and I use GNU/Linux, should I be discriminated against because the manufacturer doesn't support updates that run on my operating system? I think not. I'm STILL a paying customer and I'm entitled to good service and support. Of course, I can choose not to support such hardware vendors anymore, and I urge other Linux users to do the same. These companies only understand 'money', withhold it from them and they'll start to comprehend things. Until you do so, they'll simply keep ignoring you.

Dave

PS You can use the Ultimate windows boot CD to boot a live version of Windows and then install most firmware :-)

A good example of this is Lexmark.
I bought one of their pronters and stuck it into a linux box. CUPS did not detect it, so I called Lexmark.
They asked which OS I was using and I said Mandriva 2006. They said the company policy was that they did not support this OS and I should upgrade to Windows.. UPGRADE ? hahaha

Anyway, I emailed Lexmark and within 2 days I had a reply from them, they gave me drivers to try and they worked. The website is now up to date with linux support and drivers on it.

I also have a UMS mp3 player like the guy in a previous post, and linus sees it as a removable drive, this is fine for copy/delete mp3 etc, but there is no actual access to the flash, I cannot contact the manufacturers, because I do not know who made it, it was a cheap 256mb one, but my point is this...

Yous would not get discriminated against if you were black/yellow/white/gay/straight/bisexual/able-bodied/disabled/protesta nt/catholic/jew/muslim
but you discriminated if you are a Windows/OS X/Linux/BeOS user

There are laws that penalise companies for discrimination against their employees, it is time it was implemented for their customers too.

Again, this isn't Linux's fault, this is the software vendors offering very poor service to their paying customers. If I buy a product, and I use GNU/Linux, should I be discriminated against because the manufacturer doesn't support updates that run on my operating system?

In the case of my mp3 player, it *does* work on Linux insomuch that I can connect it via USB and transfer files to/from it (or I assume I can do so in any distro that supports UMS devices), but if I were using Linux myself, I wouldn't reasonably expect the manufacturer to go through the trouble of writing a progrma to flash the firmware for an OS which is used realistically by at the most, 5% of it customer base. Would I choose another mp3 player? Probably not. Why? Because this particular player sports a couple of features that are extremely useful for audiobook sluts such as myself, that aren't found in very many other players, if any. (For example, the ability to disable track skipping is paramount.)

1. MS has Windows/Office for everyday users, and superior VStudio/MSDN for developers.

Linux is superior technically, and just as good in ease of use, as Windows. OpenOffice is just as good as MSOffice, and it's free. VStudio is very good, but so are Kdevelop, NetBeans, Eclipse, QT Designer, Glade, and many others.

2. MS has better product documentation/support

Nope. I've tried getting support from MS, and it's a joke. Linux/FOSS gives incredible support, both from companies and user communities. Documentation for MS producst is only fair at best.

3. Windows are pretty stable now.

It has improved, but doesn't come close to Linux, BSD, MacOSX, or Solaris.

4. Linux/Unices are still harder to use.

Wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. Linspire, Xandros, Mepis, and many others, are about as easy as you can get. Now, other more technical/geek/professional Distros/Unices are harder to use for non tech users, but the newbie friendly distros simply can't be beat in the ease of use department.

5. It is only recently that a barely enough OO is available on *nices

OpenOffice has been available on *nices for a very long time.

6. There is NOT a easy to use and decent development tool. Eclipse is quite difficult to start with.

Eclipse is rather hard, as it's a framework for plugins, rather than a full out-of-the-box IDE. But see above for other great open source IDEs that are just as good or not better than VisualStudio.

7. *nices, OO, and various tools are separate products that can coexist on the same PC, not a system of products that work closely together.

Same holds true of MS products, and it's not a big deal.

8. There are a lot of decent games on Windows verses close to 0 on *nices.

There are some good games for *nices, and most great games are available for windows. Games are very expensive and labor intensive to develop, so most companies can only afford to write to the dominant platform - Windows. This is the only area where Windows has *nices beat.

1. This point is highly debatable. Many of the 'everyday' users can quite happily work with Linux distributions like Xandros or Linspire. As to superior VStudio/MSDN developer applications, of course Microsoft will have superior versions! They own the entire code set to Windows etc, that sort of gives them a huge advantage!!! If we're talking programming though, as a entity, Linux wins hands down. Out of the box I can program in:

a. Ruby
b. Python
c. c
d. c++
e. perl
f. fortran

and the list goes on...and on...and on...trying doing that, out of the box with Microsoft Windows!

2. In some respects this is true, but in many areas it isn't. Windows help and Office help have long been reknowned for being anything but 'help'. Linux has a LOT of documentation, although some of it has undesirable readability issues, I'd agree.

3. Sure they are. But there are many things that I consider broken with Windows, least amongst them the licensing agreement! Stability of Windows is still poor when compared to Unixes, but, in fairness, it is good enough for the majority of users now.

4. To some degree yes, but I cannot totally agree with you here. It really depends on how you define ease of usage, and that is wholly dependant on the user in question. Basic usage, emails, word documents, web browsing, chatting, multimedia etc are no harder on Linux than on either Mac OS X or Windows. Administration of a Linux box is harder, but not overly hard for the average computer literate user who's prepared to learn a little bit. I mean, people still drive manual gearbox cars, despite them being 'harder' to use than automatics!

5. I'd disagree with you here. OpenOffice has been quite usable, for quite some time. I'd say around 2 years now, since the official release of version 1. Compatibility with Microsoft Word etc, is always going to be an issue, since Microsoft seeks to obfuscate the APIs and discourage any competition to their Office suite.

6. All development tools have a learning curve. Sure, there's nothing quite like Visual Studio, but the markets are quite different, and the programmers are quite different as well. I think you'll find (as a generalisation) that most people coding with a Unix/Linux variant are more competent than their Windows counterparts. Of course, I don't have stats to back that statement up, it's a particularly impossible thing to actually measure.

7. And applications that run on Microsoft Windows integrate well and run together? I don't think so...the horrors of shared dll files is still a fresh memory...

8. Yeah, sure. Because games developers port them only for Windows, I suspect because of pressure from Microsoft. That's most certainly not Linux's fault.

9. ?

I'm not sure how you managed to get modded to +5, there was nothing particularly factual, or exciting about your post to warrant modding up imho. Your arguments were mostly weak, and inconclusive.

"Because games developers port them only for Windows, I suspect because of pressure from Microsoft. That's most certainly not Linux's fault."
How can MS to force someone to make a game for them? =)
This is all about installed base.
game + consoles == good money
game + windows == money
game + linux != money
Modern games can cost millions. Who will pay?

Of course, if they don't port to Linux, we can't buy the games can we!

Furthermore, there's nothing stopping the games developers from still porting to Linux/BSD, and maybe cutting a loss, but making up for that loss by subsidising it with income from their high profit areas (Windows) and low profit areas (Mac OS X).

If you consider, many games developers are porting to OS X, which has considerably less users worldwide than Linux. And, if you also consider, many Linux users aren't old "unix style" geeks, but the young generation - 15-30 year olds. There's a lot of gamers there. In fact, one of Australia's PC magazines, Atomicmpc, is a magazine devoted for gamers, hardware tinkerers, casemodders etc, and they've been promoting Linux for several years now, with a monthly article on something Linuxy (usually at least 3 or 4 pages in length I might add). Their readerships is mostly that age group that I quoted, and most of them are hardcore gamers. So, there is money to be made. And as Linux saturates more and more of the desktop market over the next 10-15 years, you're going to find more and more people, and more and more gamers, meaning more potential profit.

It's the final weeks of 2005, few games are developed with a Linux port, if not for ID there would be next to no native ports.

ATI, one of the dominant graphics cards makers seems to have little interest in supporting Linux for atleast its latest cards.

Can you name a list of companies that release commercial games on both Windows and Linux? And I mean GAMES not Opensourced Game engines that don't include art / levels / sound / etc.

1) ID
2) ?
3) ?
4) ?
5) ?
6) ?
7) ?
8) ?

If not for Wine & Cedega & CodeWeavers Linux would lose 25% or more of its users. Face it, some for many commercial Games and Applications there is no counterpart in Linux and market forces are likely to keep it this way.

While I do not like Windows, I do not like Linux either, even after promoting it for years.

However, you guys claiming Linux is better...

Where is the easy instal, you know, GUI instal. Console should have been put to death years ago.

Were is the good help system in linux. Yes, there s tons of help on the net, "RTFM" and "use the search" does not count when 50,000 threads all say the same thing. Besides, there is just as much support for MS and then some.

Where is the easily manipulated desktop environment. Why can I not re-arrange the start menu or desktop with a simple drag and drop system.

Dependencies were a nice idea 10-15 years ago, now it is a bloated mess. Along with the fact that many config files differ in each distro.

Options are good, unless you totally confuse the market or user, which is exactly what Linux does.

If you can get a Linux box working great, they do fine in an office environment, where the user is not playing with it, trying new software, playing games, etc... For home use, Linux is nowhere near ready.

You claim to be ahead, yet mosst everything is still handled through console. The console died years ago on Windows, Beos, Os2, and OSX. It works fine, but so did Dos. Many people look at Linux's console as if they are looking at Windows 3.1, and in all honestly, for the home user, it may as well be. It is foreign to them.

Now,look at the gui desktop and user interface tself. Hate to tell you guys, but it looks about as current as Win 9x does. Xp, Vista and OSX are miles ahead on this, and while the Linux gui may work ust fine, looks are important in selling something.

You guys act as if the average user knows what a command promp is. They cannot even handle a software instalation that requires downloading and double clicking. They have no clue about a directory structure (they lose documents constantly) and now you expect them to edit a config in console mode?

I often ask myself, what are Linux guys smoking.

Yes, Linux makes a great server.
Yes Linux makes a good desktop in a corporate environment where somone else handles the installs.

It does not make a good home desktop. Not by miles.

Those of you who remember the pre Win95 days, should understand this. Putting the home user on Linux is like dripping them into a win3.1 box.

Instead of calling me a troll, how about actually reading what I wrote and try to refute it.

You wonder why linux people are often called zealots? it is because you refuse to listen to people offering criticism.

In all honestly, my experience is that Linux users are some of the most close minded, and hard headed people in the computer industry. You do not tend to embrace new technology, and you refuse to listen to non-linux users who try to tell you why they have problems with Linux.

Why would I waste time refuting what is already refuted ten thousand times? You've already proved that you are a troll by regurgitating old long since myths as arguments like these "highlights".

Where is the easy instal, you know, GUI instal. Console should have been put to death years ago.

Old, lame, busted and not true anymore.

Were is the good help system in linux. Yes, there s tons of help on the net, "RTFM" and "use the search" does not count when 50,000 threads all say the same thing. Besides, there is just as much support for MS and then some.

So it's Linux fault that you can't use google or read available documentation effectively? And who claimed there was *more* help available for Linux than for Windwos?

Where is the easily manipulated desktop environment. Why can I not re-arrange the start menu or desktop with a simple drag and drop system.

You can, if you use the right environment. Besides Linux is not Windows, mistake number one among people who think they "know computers". Doh.

Dependencies were a nice idea 10-15 years ago, now it is a bloated mess. Along with the fact that many config files differ in each distro.

Old, lame, dumb and busted myth. Use the repositories provided by your distribution, or learn how the system actually works.

Options are good, unless you totally confuse the market or user, which is exactly what Linux does.

It does? Says who? You must be easily confused.

If you can get a Linux box working great, they do fine in an office environment, where the user is not playing with it, trying new software, playing games, etc... For home use, Linux is nowhere near ready.

Horseshit. You try installing and uninstalling applications like that and you'll have to reinstall quite often, because the registrey will break from that kind of treatment. I've never had to reinstall a Linux system because I installed or uninstalled too many applications. I somehow get the feeling your problem is the comparative shortage of commercial games..

You claim to be ahead, yet mosst everything is still handled through console. The console died years ago on Windows, Beos, Os2, and OSX. It works fine, but so did Dos. Many people look at Linux's console as if they are looking at Windows 3.1, and in all honestly, for the home user, it may as well be. It is foreign to them.

Bullshit. I've converted more or less total noobs to ubuntu, and they have been running it comfortably ever since. Not even ONE call for support. The one time I asked one of them to open a terminal for a quick administrative fix (could have been done graphical, but that would have taken longer time), the biggest problem turned out to be that the user had no idea where the icon for the terminal emulator was, since she'd never used it!

And so you go on, using myths, personal opinions/preferences, halftruths and outright lies as arguments or facts. IMO, that clearly makes you a troll, and I have already wasted enough time on you. Shoo!

If you really believe that the only reason Microsoft continues its dominance is because the US government "protects it", you really need to stop drinking the Koolaid and break down some wall of your own my good man.

Just get over it. You guys just fester and stew and that just breeds more bitterness out of frustration. Channel that energy for good not bullshit. We don't need another opinionated column notifying us that MS got greeedy, they broke the law and the did unethical things. For crying out loud We know that. Enough already. The US and the EU both handed down their wrath. But lets be honest about it. It had no affect. Gimme a break, take Windows Media Player out??!?!?! Oh yeah, that's worse than bamboo shoots under Bill's nails. I'm laughing so hard, I need a sip of that Koolaid!

I will not argue the superiority of OS because both clearly have their superior roles. But the article seemed to imply desktop. Linux might be good, even great on the desktop, but the venerable incumbant must be knocked from the throne with a blow that noone sees coming. Not some pissy, we think we are better bullet point list based on a socilistic ideology that feeds the OSS mindset. There, I said it.

I do appreciate the point of view or I wouldn't even respond. I have said before that I too wish there was real competition on the desktop. And I believe that Linux is gaining ground and winning some battles. But there is an old adage. "Fight your battles but win your wars." This is a battle you are wasting energy on because the Desktop war is where its at."

yep. and theres plenty of great hardware without preloaded windows too. i come to this site to read neat new stuff about operating systems and platforms, not links to pontifications about Microsoft's decaying business model...can we have some editorial discretion please?!

Many *nix users sound like religious fanatics - they can't stand the existence of another belief system. They make the rest of us sound like idiots just like they are. Just sit back and enjoy your fast, stable, root-kit free *nix system, you fundies!

Besides, we need Windows and Windows-users to exist, only so we can look at them and feel smug.

We do know that people will buy windows because they do. We have observational evidence of the fact. Sure, pc manufacturers bundle windows; however, do you think they would continue to do that if people truly demanded an alternative. Linux distro developers have not created pull-through (which can be a powerful market force which can lead a producer to change their offerings to meet demand). I feel confident in saying that there is not significant pull through. Not because I 'believe' most people don't care what's in the box; but because pc manufacturers have an extrememly strong incentive to bundle linux (or nothing at all) instead of windows. Think about, they pay a license fee for each machine with windows. They must believe, and i'm sure they do consumer research, that people want windows. Otherwise they would switch to linux, recieve the same amount of revenue (assuming sales wouldn't drop) and make a significant amount more profit as they'd now have a better margin (assuming they wouldn't charge less; which why would they if every cpu manufacturer stopped bundling windows).

I'm sorry... I am not pro-windows by any means but the argument in the article is weak. Market forces prevail and windows has its rightful place b/c business is cut throat and unfortuantely ethical businesses often don't last. That doesn't mean the monopoly will remain. If we creat pull-through for linux by getting people excited to use (more than the small community now) we stand a chance. Or if the competitive arena is disturbed, maybe linux or osx will see sales increases. Monopolies don't last for ever; or even oligopolies for that matter -- just look at the downward decline of Ford and General Motors in the North American auto sector for proof of that....

"We do know that people will buy windows because they do. We have observational evidence of the fact. "

No, they buy computers that usually comes with Windows.

"Sure, pc manufacturers bundle windows; however, do you think they would continue to do that if people truly demanded an alternative."

First people must be made aware of the alternatives and be offered them as an option. Even if Joe User would like to have, say, Ubuntu pre-installed on his new box do you think he'll get it if he asks in the store? Most likely not. They'll just tell him to do it himself or just use the Windows that comes with the box. If they even know what Linux is.

"Not because I 'believe' most people don't care what's in the box; but because pc manufacturers have an extrememly strong incentive to bundle linux (or nothing at all) instead of windows."

You have seen the MS OEM contracts, right? You are not ALLOWED to bundle any other OS if you want your nice OEM rebate from MS.

"I'm sorry... I am not pro-windows by any means but the argument in the article is weak."
Agreed, it's the usual sub-standard LXer article that we have come to expect.

The exact same, considering this is a free market, sort of. The only thing that goes against that is government control.

Having the government regulate microsoft would be insanely stupid. You'd end up killing it off before users want it to be (notice I said users and not geeks), so you'd probably get a big whiplash effect. Either that, or it would just be completely ineffective.

Yes, and this is fine. However, you fail to note that Microsoft does 'dirty' deals with hardware vendors to make sure that they only bundle Microsoft Windows. If they decide to bundle something else, there is usual a clause in the agreement that states that the cost of Microsoft Windows goes from $5 each to $150 etc. Remember Dell a few years ago?

Microsoft uses every single dirty tactic in the book to discourage and force hardware vendors to ONLY preload Microsoft Windows on desktop PCs and laptops. Microsoft can afford to offer Windows at dirt cheap prices like $5 because idiots go out and pay full prices for retail versions of Microsoft Office. And of course, Microsoft Office only runs on Windows and the inconsequential Apple platform, which is no real competition to the Microsoft dominance.

If you want true freedom, make Microsoft port Office to Linux, BSD etc. Go on. See what starts to happen then. And don't give me any bullshit that there's not enough users to justify porting it to Linux or BSD, cos that's just crap. There are fewer Apple users worldwide than Linux users, yet Microsoft can manage to port Office to the OS X platform. What gives?

Microsoft has a monopoly, has abused it, has long since abused it, and continues to abuse it, despite being found guilty. It's plainly obvious that the US government is not going to punish Microsoft for any of these infringements, purely because of monetary greed - the loss of income to the US economy would cause it to collapse!

If they decide to bundle something else, there is usual a clause in the agreement that states that the cost of Microsoft Windows goes from $5 each to $150 etc. Remember Dell a few years ago?

Post some links with the figures. I'm always curious.

Of course to a degree I have no doubt this happens. Seems to happen in every industry I've ever worked.

Microsoft uses every single dirty tactic in the book to discourage and force hardware vendors to ONLY preload Microsoft Windows on desktop PCs and laptops.

None of that changes the fact that for desktop use Linux distros largely suck. If there was real money in pre-installing Linux then vendors would do it despite MS.

If you want true freedom, make Microsoft port Office to Linux, BSD etc. Go on. See what starts to happen then.

In regards to what ?

And don't give me any bullshit that there's not enough users to justify porting it to Linux or BSD, cos that's just crap. There are fewer Apple users worldwide than Linux users, yet Microsoft can manage to port Office to the OS X platform. What gives?

Well lets see... some of the core applications that make up office actually came out on the mac first.

MS was supporting the mac before windows ever shipped.

Supporting apple has payoffs for MS as I'm sure they collaborate on some level.

Its profitable venture that continued to bring in revenue without threatening the windows market.

in short there is probably no business case for MS to support a version of office on Linux.

Microsoft has a monopoly, has abused it, has long since abused it, and continues to abuse it, despite being found guilty. It's plainly obvious that the US government is not going to punish Microsoft for any of these infringements, purely because of monetary greed - the loss of income to the US economy would cause it to collapse!

How would there be a loss of income to the US economy ?

Will everyone start buying a distro of Linux that was compiled in china or something ?

Dell basically wanted to sell Linux on some of its servers and PCs, and Microsoft pointed out in their agreement with Dell that they could do that, but the price that Dell paid for Microsoft Windows would no longer stay the same. Since Dell primarily sells Windows based systems, a price rise from say, $5 to $100 would be catastrophic. I believe Microsoft can no longer do such agreements post DOJ settlement. As to finding a article that states the costs for OEM versions of Windows, I doubt I'll find anything. I mean, would Dell like for the average consumer who pays $300 for the retail version of Windows to know that they get Windows for as little as $5. My information comes from an inside source for an undisclosed major PC and laptop manufacturer. I can say no more.

Quote: "Seems to happen in every industry I've ever worked"

True, to some extent, but I think the software industry has this problem to a much larger and more rampant extent. At least from my experience.

Quote: "None of that changes the fact that for desktop use Linux distros largely suck. If there was real money in pre-installing Linux then vendors would do it despite MS."

I don't think it largely sucks. Again, a lot of it comes down to users and their abilities. I've been successfully using Libranet GNU/Linux as my only desktop machine for the past near 3 years. It works for me. That sort of negates your argument. By the way, I'm pretty damn experienced with both Microsoft Windows and Apple Macs, so I have a good ability to compare Linux and it's abilities to them. It stands up pretty damn good if you ask me!

Quote: " In regards to what ? "

My point is that some people are saying that Microsoft shouldn't be 'hounded' by the US DOJ, but should be allowed to do whatever it wants, no matter what problems it causes by having untethered responsibilities for its actions. My counterargument to that is force Microsoft to port Office to Linux/BSD. See how many Windows installations will be lost as people migrate to Linux/BSD. Freedom works both ways. That freedom to still use Office from your operating system of choice means better choices for the customer - me. Why should I only be limited to Windows and Macs if I want to use MS Office?

Quote: " MS was supporting the mac before windows ever shipped."

That is very true. I don't deny that. It wasn't out of love of the Apple platform that Microsoft did this, but out of trying to maintain and grow a monopoly on office suites on the Apple platform, and stop Apple from expanding and creating a 'entire platform' of software that would compete with Microsoft products running on an Intel based system.

Quote: " Supporting apple has payoffs for MS as I'm sure they collaborate on some level. "

Oh, I'm sure as well!

Quote: " in short there is probably no business case for MS to support a version of office on Linux. "

There is, there most certainly is. I can guarantee you that if they ported MS Office to Linux, it'd be a hit. It would sell like hotcakes. People would be ditching OpenOffice in a jiffy, because they'd have 100% guarantee compability with MS Office documents made on both the Windows and Mac platforms. That means a lot ot businesses. Sadly, Microsoft knows that Microsoft Windows would get dumped real quick, and replaced by Linux desktops - cheaper and more reliable and more secure. It would gain money from MS Office sales, but lose a LOT of money from losses in the operating system field. So, by tying MS Office only to Windows and Mac, Microsoft makes sure that it's killing any potential competition in the operating system market. This is why I argued that the US DOJ should have made Microsoft port windows msn messenger, windows media player and MS Office to the Linux and BSD platforms. See how quick the operating system market evens up then :-) Microsoft is purely using it's market ownership to maintain and grow a monopoly. Nothing more, and nothing less. The penalties (if they can even laughingly be called that) administered by the US DOJ are laughable and worthless.

Quote: " How would there be a loss of income to the US economy ? "

Try a bit harder. Microsoft Windows is a big seller. It has 95% of the operating system market. Now, imagine if Microsoft lost 75% of those windows sales to Linux. That lost income is a LOT of money. And tht income would be mostly going to non US companies, selling Linux distributions. That income loss will directly affect the US economy.

So making a deal with a company to have them sell your OS to gain exposure is illegal (I'm speaking of the original IBM/Microsoft deal)....wow, there are sooooo many companies that are illegally operating than, we should just go on an anti-corporate surge right now *sarcastic*. Whether a PC business uses Windows or not is their choice, not Microsoft's...sure it makes Microsoft happy, they're profiting gosh but they don't go to, say, Gateway and go "Well if you don't bundle Microsoft with your PCs, we'll never sell you Windows again" (which to a degree Intel does so if you should be on anybodies case for this it should be them (not bashing Intel, just their current business choices)). If you're talking about the included IE, WMP, etc...last I checked Mac OS X comes with the equivalents and more bundled and it's a popular claim by Linux advocates that "all the software you need is included", if anything, Windows should add more software, such as Office. Gosh, you're definatly one fo the most ignorant users on OSNews.

OK I went on a rant-binge, I'm gonna rescind that last statement but still stick to my earlier points, and also add that if you don't want to use Windows bundled software there are plenty of alternatives (Firefox and Opera for a browser; Realplayer, DivX, WinAmp, etc for a media player; OpenOffice.org 2.0, AbiWord, etc for office software; alternative shells to replace explorer.exe; etc etc) so in my opinion, this is not illegal...in all my years of using Windows, it has never told me "You cannot use Firefox(2003(? Phoenix v0.5 was the first) - Now)/Mozilla(2000-2002)/Netscape(Beginning - 1999)" or "You cannot use RealPlayer/RealOne".

Trick question, people don't buy windows. They buy a computer, Windows happens to be there they think it's alright. More people are wanting an alternative as Windows becomes more of a hassle to maintain.

She could have changed the headline so that it didn't start with "Superior Linux Technology ...". Come on now, let's be objective here. If you're going to say it's superior, back it up and explain how it's superior.

Blindly stating that Linux is superior should be left up to the frothing GNU/Linux zealots, and not intelligent people who choose the best product for the job. I can name many ways in which Linux is not superior to Windows, and I can name ways in which it is.

You do realize "Superior Linux Technology ..." is the title of the article linked to. The only changes made was shortening it, which is a far bit away from completely altering it. In any event, I don't think it's that big of a deal--you seem to be the only one that does.

If you were in charge of American national security, and you knew in 1978 that everybody in America with a functioning brain was going to have a computer and eventually the ability to network? First, have IBM use its brand image and market power to take over the market. Next, setup a single technology provider with a tyrant political minded person to run it. That way the Pentagon/NSA have a single choke/control point to work with instead of trying to herd a thousand really smart and unpredictible engineers like Gary Kildall. The OEM's aren't gonna provide a boot floppy with HD diagnostics and force users to wipe, partition, and format, although IMO they should, and users certainly should know how to do (re)installs.

Enough of 'if this' or 'if that'. Let's look at the appeal of the 2 main alternatives:

Apple does an awfully good job at marketing its wares and producing appealing software for it. The OS looks good, works well and you can get opensource and commercial software in most fields for it. There is no shortage of peripherals claiming compatibility and Apple has been around for donkey's years. Apple even had an Apple only uber cool product for some time: the iPod, no less. How does linux compare ?

Linux is available on very little hardware, let alone appealing and with no marketing whatsoever other than : it is 'secure stable and cheaper'. Most people have never heard of it and of the hardware manufacturers preloading it, which are mainly US only businesses. You can't buy accounting, MS Office, video editing, educational, law, medical, design, home oriented software but there is plenty of opensource software around, if your distro vendor made the effort of packaging it.

Not difficult to see that apart from the stiffling monopoly MS enjoys, there is a distinct lack of appeal for Linux as a platform. And even Apple, with a undisputably more attractive proposition is struggling to make a difference.

I run linux and I know why but I don't expect my reasons are worth anything to anybody else.

The market isn't just desktops. Apparently I hear this company IBM makes these servers, which a couple good distros already run on. Apparently they are also quite efficient. There's also these things called embedded devices, Linux also loves those too.

Even if every single manufacturer refused to preload a copy of Windows on each boot drive on a new computer, it would still take a very long time for Microsoft to have a real reason to worry. One word says it all: inertia.

People resist change (even quite often when that change is money handed to them ) because it's inconvenient or expensive in time, money and/or effort. Let's use an imperfect car analogy to explain this:

People can go and buy most any car they have the money to buy, and that's no big deal. However, buying a car is a rather large investment to get a new one in most cases, relative to income. It takes quite a bit of time and effort to save up money to get one. Once they've got a car (Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Yugo) they can readily enough (from a technical standpoint) acquire another new car, but in most cases, the question would be why they'd want to bother. Most cars aren't differentiated enough in function and value to make that leap randomly, and without expending a lot of resources to acquire it and a certain amount of resources to learn how to make the best use of it. Where things get more interesting is in the case of car repairs, for those that do them, or even those that hire others to do them for them. If you work hard enough at it, you can swap an engine from a Ford and put it in a Toyota, but the expense and hassle are most likely too costly, and then maintaining it after that point becomes that much more difficult, due to the car hack done. A less major thing would (in theory) be replacing the fuel injection/carburation system with that from another car manufacturer/one made for a different type of car: once again, it most likely isn't completely impossible, but the pain involved is too high to make the leap.

Now, what would happen if the car owner were to know that if they did such a FrankenCar assembly, they could win races and earn lots of money by having a superior vehicle (please ignore that it requires a driver that knows how to race to win as well)? Then they might take that leap and change their ways and car: they have enough reason to overcome their inertia, their resistance to change, because there's a sufficient reason to make it seem worthwhile.

With computers and the OS, the OS is much like the car in general, and the software that runs on the OS is much like all the other car parts. All those other car parts tend to get costly to maintain and replace, and learn about how to do that maintenance. One car/OS more or less functions well enough as another, and they get you down the road. It's far more cost-effective from time/effort/grief to not throw out your current car/OS and just maintain it (in most cases) than to rip out everything under the hood and hack away, or replace things entirely. The most likely chosen car someone will use on a regular basis is the one they already have invested themselves in: the one they already have. Until that car stops functioning well enough to fulfill their needs, switching to another car isn't likely to be seriously contemplated for those that don't have a huge amount of resources.

In one thing is probaly right, if windows is not preloaded, how many ppl are disposed to pay 250€ to a copy of XP Pro.

I like Kdevelop for my hobby programing in qt, kdev is very complete.
About documentation, i'm very pleased, most of api is easly encountered. There are windows API parts that you won't find.
Linux is not for a inexperience user, but for adventurous
In my case, the windows aplications that "i need" to university all work well with wine!
The point is if windows is not preloaded, does ppl still go with windows?

It's because the ends justify the means. Most users want to browse the internet, download files, look at email, listen to music, and maybe play some games. They don't care how, they just want fast, easy, simple. Windows does that for them, because it's always there and all they know.

I like linux and the BSD's myself, but I use OS X at home because I don't want to give a damn about drivers, or having the right libraries at home, I just want a computer to work. I use my linux box to serve and do work, but I would only use it as a desktop for a quick geek high of compiling a stage 1 gentoo install all the way through to the desktop manager.

I probably wouldn't use windows, except for gaming, mostly because I've grown accustomed to the smoothness of Auqa and the command line of the *nixes.

So even if linux is technically superior, doesn't mean its functionally superior.

Microsoft has the technology, the support, the documentation, the development tools, the roadmap and the capacity to help when things go wrong.

Linux has... some technology, almost non-existant support, poorly organised and written documentation, poor development tools, almost no unified roadmap and very little capacity to reach their customers when things go wrong.

Relying on "chat forums" for support is hardly a trust worthy source of advice.

You're just a mouth if you don't know that Linux is far superior to anything Microsoft makes...anything.

Depends. I work for a very large company and we have everything from old school cray super computers to PDAs deployed and for some things yes windows is the better choice. For others it might be linux, or it might be AIX, HP/UX or Solaris (we use them all)

Windows stopped our warships in the middle of the ocean and had to be rebooted. Linux runs 256 node sonar arrays in nuclear subs and never needs rebooting.

Yeah and a mis-calculation in a piece of embedded firmware made the patriot missile system fail in the late nineties (it wasn't running windows) WTF is your point ?

Give Linux the multi-media pieces Microsoft and Apple has monopolized and you'd see a completely different story.

We might in another 10 years unless you feel that linux is out of the race ?

Windows is XP - 1995 NT stolen from DEC. It's half baked garbage. Everything else ran on DOS - which was never meant to run more than one program at a time -NEVER!!!!!!!

I'm sure that David Cutler and the other engineers that MS HIRED would argue with you there but I guess they have better things to do then post on these forums. lol.

Microsoft wouldn't have any business if Bill's faher wasn't an attorney.

lol where did you pull this from? oh thats right... YOUR ASS

UNIX could have made it if the sellers weren't so greedy.

Made it where ? It was never marketed as a desktop OS until recently.

The Internet doesn't run on Windows, it runs on UNIX, Linux and BSD.

Considering that every computer connected IS THE INTERNET and I'd be willing to bet the net is utilizing windows as a whole more than any other OS.

Anything else youu have to say is pathetic and lacking of an informed opinion.

I'm sorry I replied. Not because you are such an informed uber geek, but mostly because you are a waste of my time.

At last, a smart comment. That's the reason MS is so dominant. Not because of the internet, it's because the corporate desktop. And Windows is not the reason MS is so dominant. Is the apps they have created around Windows (Office, Exchange, SQL, Active Directory). BTW, the FOSS guys always talk about how great linux is, and they dont have something as Active Directory or the integration with clients PC's of Volume Shadow Copy. If the FOSS wants to fight MS, the need to stop thinking of a Internet-only world and start including the real corporate world in their plans. My two cents...

Another thing: People should stop comparing Windows XP to Red Hat or other Linux distributions. Linux isn't a desktop OS. It lacks the same ease of use of Windows, driver support isn't as good as Windows, and nobody can credibly argue that OO is a full-featured alternative to MS Office yet. Whether Linux zealots want to admit it or not, Linux is primarily being used in a server role. If you want to compare apples and apples, compare Linux to, say, Windows 2003 Server or Mac OS X Server. And, based on such comparisons, it's clear that the so-called "superior Linux technology" ain't so superior.

"Another thing: People should stop comparing Windows XP to Red Hat or other Linux distributions. Linux isn't a desktop OS. It lacks the same ease of use of Windows, driver support isn't as good as Windows, and nobody can credibly argue that OO is a full-featured alternative to MS Office yet. Whether Linux zealots want to admit it or not, Linux is primarily being used in a server role. If you want to compare apples and apples, compare Linux to, say, Windows 2003 Server or Mac OS X Server. And, based on such comparisons, it's clear that the so-called "superior Linux technology" ain't so superior."

First, stop saying "Linux zealots". The only zealots here, who are trolling and making stuff up, and saying things that are factually incorrect, and making inflammatory remarks, are the pro windows posters. THe fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Linux users, and pro Linux posters, are very reasonable and only use Linux because it is great and they like it. Just because someone uses Linux, and puts up pro Linux posts on message boards, does not automatically make them a zealot. But the pro Windows crowd always uses this kind of childish name calling and stereotyping.

Second, Linux is a spectacular desktop OS, and yes, it's plenty easy - as my 71 year old, computer illiterate, Mother, using Linspire with the greatest of ease, is irrefutable proof. Then look at other desktop oriented distros, such as Mandriva, which pushes "ease of use" as well as features, into the stratosphere.

Third, Linux has fantastic hardware driver support. In fact, it's superior to Windows, in spite of Windows market dominance. Linux will support upwards of 98% of devices out of the box, as the kernel loads the necessary modules automaticaly. Windows supports very little out of the box, as you are required to manually install drivers, or put in a driver disc from the PC manufacturer. I know this, as I've installed Windows at least 50 times at work, and I've installed Linux (both at work and at home), using many different distros, many, many times. Facts are facts.

Fourth, OO supports at least 95% of what MSOffice does, and that final 5% are features that something like 99% of MSOffice users never use or even know about. Especially with the new version 2.0, OO is very full featured and easy and robust (and free).

Fifth, Linux is a fantastic server OS, and quite frankly superior to WinServer2003. Linux is the fastest growing server OS out there (as IDC numbers have shown), it's the main OS of IBM and others, and is the dominant Web server (as Netcraft surveys have shown). And Linux does not get the security breaches, viruses or worms that the various versions of Windows does (it gets some, as no software is perfect, but it a mere fraction of what Windows gets).

First, stop saying "Linux zealots". The only zealots here, who are trolling and making stuff up, and saying things that are factually incorrect, and making inflammatory remarks, are the pro windows posters. THe fact of the matter is, the vast majority of Linux users, and pro Linux posters, are very reasonable and only use Linux because it is great and they like it.

Now that's a joke. There are idiots on both sides, and you simply can not argue that, so don't try.

But when it comes to marketing, people agree that Word of Mouth is the most influential tool that could be used - It lends credibility that a 'get the facts' campaign could never achieve (be it right or not). If (we) linux users are serious about increasing Linux's role in the OSspace we need to spread the word. For the most part we are, but showing the unconverted what linux can offer more actively would have clear benefits. Consider too, with most distros being 'free' the switching costs are quite low (for mom and dad users anyway) - which should make the process quite easy.

When I talk to someone and an OS topic comes up, I whip out my laptop and show them
* OpenOffice
* Synaptic
* Remote Connection Home (Gnomevfs over ssh)

And they are shocked - most could not imagine a 'software store' where they simply click a few buttons to get the latest software.

C'mon guys, we have a really great product here, time to get really excited about it.

"C'mon guys, we have a really great product here, time to get really excited about it."

Indeed a real product exists.....
Now get 99% of the Linux community to shut up and stop making the product look like a train wreck via their own words. Some who "believe" they are helping the effort, are cutting it's balls off.

I'll go to my grave claiming the reason people think Linux sucks is the attitude of the very people who are attempting to advance it.

Linux has a LOT going for it...
Unfortunately, the people who are behind it don't have public relations skills in proportion to their technical skills.

It's easy to wow a cow orker with the way Linux works, but getting it (formally) installed on the corporate LAN is quite a different issue. There's a lot of procedural inertia present in large corporations.

I've found it relatively easy to backdoor various other tryes of free software and prove their usefulness, and the company is finally starting to take Linux seriously as a server development platform. Not on the desktop, though, not yet. But that day is coming. :-)

Linux is disorganised and has too many power hungry organisations trying to capitalise without looking at the big picture, which is that Desktop users are either unaware of or are confused about Linux.

I think the only way the playing field can be levelled is if these two unlikely events happen:

1. Microsoft make it *impossible* (without major hackery at least) to install a pirated copy of Windows. At the moment, they have a corporate version that doesn't require product activation and hence is pirated like crazy amongst both home and business users. Microsoft turn a blind eye to this (despite what they might publicly say), because a pirated Windows install is better for them than an alternative OS such as Linux being used instead.

2. Major OEMs should offer PCs either with no OS (and hence *no* OS or software support whatsoever - the user can only get support for hardware faults if they buy the machine with no OS) or with Windows included. There should be an appropriate price difference between the two (it doesn't have to be the full price diff - offer the diff at half the price of buying retail XP separately - cut-price bundle deals are fine, providing you can also buy a standalone (no OS) deal too).

If these two steps took place (and they really don't look like happening in the short-term future), I think you'd see a sharper rise in Linux uptake. Remember that Dell do something like like this for their server range already (and will even ship Linux pre-installed as well if you want it), so it's not impossible to see it happening on the desktop side as well. Heck, Dell *do* support Linux (on servers) - see http://linux.dell.com/

IMHO Microsoft is not only #1 for selling more OS than anyone else but also for locking the market AND the minds of millions of people around the world. I meet Windows users every day for work and it's just amazing to see what world they live in.

I'm a linux user. I don't think Linux is ready yet for mainstream but it is getting better rapidly. I'm quite confident about its future because it's simply unstoppable.
I don't give a shit about is it going to rule the world and is it going to smash Windows. MS can go on with its anti linux campaigns or whatever they fear. Linux will find its way and I'll do what I can to help because I believe it's important.

and I thought it was pretty obvious to people caring about these things in 2005 that:

i) there is no such thing as a coherent plan for global GNU/Linux desktop domination or Microsoft replacement. OSS are pieces of technology that can freely be combined in a variety of ways, some of which produces pretty slick and functional desktop platforms and some of which that produces powerful servers for instance, to meet the needs of current users. This is far more ambitious than copying the MS Windows desktop experience.

ii) since OSS development is mainly driven by the need to expand computer functionality and solve problems, instead of maximizing net profit margins, this process is possible even when it does not yield any immediate financial profit. While attracting more users to OSS and free OSes is nice, it is not vital for OSS to "stay in business". This is very different from how commercial software companies need to operate to survive.

iii) as compared to commercial closed-source companies, commercial OSS distributors will need to continously re-invent themselves and improve their products to stay attractive due to the nature of their software packages. This makes it very difficult for any single GNU/LInux company to become an Apple or Microsoft replacement - if software is free or cheap, you can not expect the same locked-in user loyalty. OSS users switch to other products when they are found to be better.

The sum of these three statements is that OSS as a process is here to stay and that it will attract users once the benefit/fun of switching is big and clear enough (assuming that people are rational). Many have already switched, some might never see a reason to (too bad for them).

OSS would stumble into BIG problems however if laws were passed that hindered its mechanics. Lets see what trusted computing and DRM can do in a few years from now...

The argument that people only use Linux because that is what OEM's load has been stomped on.

Even most of the people that read OSNews and Slashdot that often have both Linux and Windows installed still boot to Windows most of the time.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the only reason OEM's install Windows on machines is some sort of government backed conspiracy against Linux. They could throw Linux on these machines for free and if it is a "Superior Technology" as they say, doing so would also lower technical support costs.

So start your own company and dominate the market then instead of crying conspiracy.

I fail to comprehend how some people can be so distanced from reality and still have people take them seriously.

Shame on OSNews for giving these f--ktards a voice. There are reasonable, well grounded people in the Linux community but nobody ever seems to want to listen to what they are saying.

"The argument that people only use Linux because that is what OEM's load has been stomped on. "

I think you mean Windows. Most OEM's dont load Linux.

"Even most of the people that read OSNews and Slashdot that often have both Linux and Windows installed still boot to Windows most of the time."
Do you have any empirical evidence supporting this claim or are you just pulling it out of thin air?

"I don't subscribe to the idea that the only reason OEM's install Windows on machines is some sort of government backed conspiracy against Linux."

1.) I'm a developer. I prefer emacs, bash, gdb, and valgrind to any IDE out there. (I've been known to dabble in many a text editor, but I keep comin' back to emacs)
2.) So does every product. What's your point? Seriously, who doesn't have documentation? Microsofts help files are as pathetic and useless as everyone elses. Their developer documentation is amazing, a lil better than most actually; but everyone (almost) has developer documentation.
3.) Not in any way, shape or form. At least not if you mean what stable means. If you mean reliable, then yes it's fairly reliable now. But take a look at Vista: Windows is hardly stable. It's a moving target, as it always has been.
4.) No. Just different. At one time it was probably harder to use Unix than Windows. Although I'm not sure, if you compare apples to apples and similar release times. Command lines aren't necessarily hard, they're just different. DOS had done, did you know people considered it easy? Yes, it was a CP/M shell, which is invariably simpler; but people probably spent more time complaining about what DOS didn't have rather than learning what it did have.
5.) OO? You mean that thing that didn't fix all the worlds problems but just helped some people and helped some others into ruining their projects by using it wrong? Like every other nice technology for developers. You mean that thing which you have full access to via: c++, java (even with free tools, gcj), .net, php, python, (perl?), etc etc etc.
6.) That's because Unix guys know better. IDE's are frowned upon because they don't promote configurability and they actively go against a full understanding of the build process (something a developer should understand).
7.) Yea, that's how everything actually works; we're just not making a GUI which pretends to be seemless but just hides the glue from you. Sure, modules written by different groups don't always work as well together as ones from the same company; but woopedy doo; if you can't figure out eclipse or emacs or gcc or gdb how will you ever write any useful code?
8.) I assume you mean modern games. But yea, we're limited to under 10 I think without paying for cedega (upping us to a couple hundred or so?). But that's honestly not a problem: Probably half the computer users never touch modern video games (I believe the gaming industry calls them: Most women and old people). Not to mention the other 60% of desktops which are usually mandated to not be playing such games (often called work machines and owned by businesses).
9.) An ellipsis usually has three periods. I'd let ya off here, but you were so over-zealous about everything else... (see, three)

No, actually they're hard (or at least harder than GUIs). For example, if I put you in front of a system you had never worked with and told you to change the background color of the display, and all you had on the screen was a flashing command prompt, the best you could do is type 'help' or randomly type in commands and hope something happens.
However, if you were in front of a system with dialog boxes and command buttons, you could probably figure it out pretty quickly.
Of course, once you figure out how to work the CLI version, changing colors will be quicker in the future (esp if you can script it), which is why I'm in favor of hybrid systems with both fully workable CLI/GUI systems. Give me a GUI until I get comfortable with the system, but make it modular so I can turn it off when I get ready to remove the training wheels.

Funny. That's one thing I rather like about the community. Instead of fire-breathing lying marketers they're everyday people with feelings and passion.

It takes a long time for this sort of thing to pick up momentum. And honestly I think it's a bit late in the game. 10 years ago people got excited about OS's. Today, most OS's work well enough that people forget they cared about them before. Getting people excited about saving an hour here and there is hard; they don't care.
I think Linux adoption is moving along the right lines. I'd guess most of the people running Linux around here are my age (18-27) and are "computer geeks." That's the group which will be and is defining what people are going to want to use on their desktop.

Patience is important, it's gonna be a decade before there's anything we could call a "revolution" worth of people using Linux...

Free markets don't work when consumers don't police the market. It's the same reason organizations like the FDA (which is doing a pathetic job btw) exist.
If true free markets worked we could be assured that no business would dare sell us bad meat because no one would trust to buy meat from them again: In the US, people would buy meat from a bum holding a half empty bottle of whiskey wreaking of urine. Yes, I'm sure I can find someone, with a job (not a "bum"), who would buy that meat.
And here in the US people will happily go to Best Buy and buy the shiniest computer without the least idea of any parts contained within it. They'll continue to buy it, and the warranty, even after they were raped on it the last time.

Free markets are nice. We don't have one, people know it, and they depend on it like a crutch.

Yes agreements like this are illegal:
"We agree to only buy products from you, of this type, and in exchange you agree to sell them cheaper. Should we buy a product from another place, you will stop selling us your product."
It's actually the refusal of sale that gets you into trouble ... I think. I'm not a lawyer.

Guess what, OSNews posts another Microsoft bashing article! This brings the count up to 234. Congratulations, one more and you'lll be presenting the 235'th biased, unfairly slanted article claiming that Microsoft is the antichrist.

"However, if you were in front of a system with dialog boxes and command buttons, you could probably figure it out pretty quickly."
I could do nothing, because I don't know what dialog boxes and command buttons are. I don't know that the appearance of a positive z box indicated a button, I don't know that a row of text indicates a menubar, etc etc etc.
I'd have absolutely no idea where to even begin. I wouldn't even know the difference between right and left click. As with everything else, I'd have to learn what to do.

Frankly, I expect them to write code to flash the BIOS which doesn't require an OS: It's called a boot floppy/cd. There's multiple approaches to doing the difficult part of it, but in the end your customers don't need a working windows install .
Heck, write the code so it works in DOS, then the windows users can have an exe which loads up a `command` and runs the code.

All the businees customers who use window$ for more than 4 weeks would realize that it is a piece of junk. For non-business users the choice is so less that it is almost does not exist (Macs are expesive and you have to get it from only few stores, Linux - support related issues). Coming to enterprises the only reason that they use is to protect their company's huge investments that might be tied to MS's stock. The bottom line appears to be money not the quality or technology.

The true factor that makes windows on top of sale is not the quality or the US goverment but the dominance.
Dominance is an important factor; and only a smaller dominances can take MS down if they co-operate.
If you hear you brother, your school, your college, your boss, your employees, the corporations and all these people use windows then you feel yourself like an alien if you choose Mac, Linuxes, Unixes, Zeta,...etc (Unless of course you are a computer genius).

Other countries are more free to use other OSs than windows simply because they are still Computing primitive countries.
I think for us the chances are weak to break from MS dominance and the only way to stop them will be from the outside world when the other countries will force us to use Unixes or Linuxes to communicate with them due maybe to Windows Salsa (next windows after vista) vulnerabilities. Much like current enterprise firewalls which don't allow you to communicate with the mainframe if you don't have the latest OS patches and other anti-infective measures.

1) Businesses want to do business and they don't care what OS its on. They want to use applications and send documents that other people can read and respond to.

2) Viruses/spyware are not largely a problem anymore. Every windows user who has progressed through their operating systems understands that the flexibility (and to a lesser degree, flawed security practices like everyone as admin) means they must buy a *GASP* $30 anti virus product. This anti virus product updates automatically and causes them no issues. Firewall? Its included. This is especially true in the business environment where they don't use software firewalls and are protected by network firewalls. Spyware protection should be included in the os, but most people have already switched to firefox. I use spybot for when I have to use IE. Either way, lets be realistic. Users will adapt to the problems they encounter. Lets not be arrogant and assume they are helpess with their default web browser. At my work several users have already switched to firefox.

3) No one cares that microsoft is a "Convicted Monopolist". If that gets you tuned up, its time to go outside and start breathing deeply.

4) Microsoft has the best support for new hardware. Its fun to say that "X distro works fine with X hardware", but all of them do not work with the same amount/range of hardware as microsoft does. This is part of my first point as well.

5) All operating systems are more similiar now then they are different. This makes alternatives even less attractive. If the cost of microsoft XP turns you off, consider how long you will use the operating system. If your machine is 3-5 years old, and you paid a couple of hundred bucks at year 1, does that really matter? Theres a real life trade off here. The initial cost of the OS is peanuts. If you can buy the computer hardware, you can certainly pay for the operating system. Your still free to use it as long as you want and you backwards compatibility is excellent.

Linux and open source has brought us some very good things. A fast kernel, KDE is beautiful, apache is sweet.. mysql (dual licensed), but its time to start focusing on building those and more applications to be demonstrably *better* than windows counterparts or you are just wasting your time.

my $.02

PS) I use Windows XP, 2003, and solaris 9 at work. Each has their place.

What's wrong with that? That's what a lot of everyday users say too. So instead of actually making it easier, they are called idiots. And people wonder why Linux has some troubles gaining considerable marketshare.

No one really has to push OSS or Linux forward. As long as there is a propriatary closed source monopoly, people will find alternatives to satisfy their needs. Linux itself will someday be replaced by a superior open system because people want more. The times are changing and not many of us saw todays technology twenty years ago. But the human need for better alternatives will always be there. For me, Linux is the thing, I can do my daily work better with it, I think I can do anything with it with a little scripting. And I'm having fun with computers for the first time in 10 years! I can't but encourage people to try switching!

But competition is always good for everyone. Look at Microsoft, making special deals with cities thinking about switching away from Windows. They wouldn't lower prices if the people didn't have a choice, would they? Look at Internet Explorer, which is now being developed after a 5-year sleep, just because Firefox has given people a better alternative. And if the next Windows is secure as the marketmen say, we'll all win the Internet back from virus floods and spambot clusters.